State ex rel. Cunagin Construction Corp. v. Creech

254 N.E.2d 18, 20 Ohio St. 2d 128, 49 Ohio Op. 2d 447, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 316
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 17, 1969·No. No. 69-197·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The written denial of the planning commission of the validity of the application for a building permit and its refusal to act on the same constituted the final act of respondents, the lawfulness of which was subject to review by appeal pursuant to Section 2506.01 et seq., Revised Code. Relator has failed to show or explain why that remedy was inadequate or unavailable.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals in denying the writ of mandamus is, therefore, affirmed on the authority of paragraph three of the syllabus of State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St. 2d 141.

Judgment affirmed.

Taet, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan and Corrigan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State ex rel. Cunagin Construction Corp. v. Creech, 254 N.E.2d 18, 20 Ohio St. 2d 128, 49 Ohio Op. 2d 447, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 316 (Ohio 1969).

254 N.E.2d 18 (State ex rel. Cunagin Construction Corp. v. Creech) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble
551 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)
In Re Petition for Annexation of 5.11 Acres in Northampton Twp.
516 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1986)
State, Ex Rel. Fontaine v. Hanover Bd, Trustees
479 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)